CTRL is designed to provide practical guidance for litigators, eDiscovery counsel, litigation support professionals, or anyone else who is trying to fight against the growing trend of excessive and inefficient discovery practices.  We have assembled some resources here, all of which are designed to be used and improved upon by you.  all we ask in return is that you also share your improvements so others can continue to cycle of improvement.

Model Stipulation and Order re Use of Predictive Coding

The Coalition of Technology Resources for Lawyers is maintaining a model stipulation and order regarding the use of predictive coding. We are doing so in an effort to help provide counsel, clients, and the courts with ongoing direction on the use of predictive coding in the event that a court orders the parties to enter into a predictive coding use protocol or the parties decide to do so of their own accord.

In so doing, we disclaim that obtaining a stipulation and order is necessarily a best practice.  For example, whether such a process will satisfy the mandate of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 that “every action and proceeding” be resolved in “a just, speedy, and inexpensive” manner will depend upon the circumstances of each case, requiring the application of legal judgment.

Guidelines Regarding the Use of Predictive Coding

The use of predictive coding has been both contagious and controversial since its introduction to the discovery process. Predictive coding has found welcome recipients in clients, counsel, and the courts, all of whom are seeking to expedite the ESI search and review process. Nevertheless, misconceptions persist regarding what is predictive coding, when it should be used, and the process for how to successfully implement it into a discovery workflow. In an effort to dispel confusion over these issues and to help provide informed direction on the use of predictive coding, the Coalition of Technology Resources for Lawyers has prepared a few guidelines that it believes will aid attorneys, clients, and judges regarding the use of predictive coding.

Download - Stipulation & Order

Download - Guidelines Regarding the Use of Predictive Coding

  • Pingback: A New eDiscovery Challenge: Addressing Predictive Coding Court Orders | CTRL - The Coalition of Technology Resources for Lawyers()

  • Drew Lewis

    Great starting point for lawyers who are hesitant to embrace the idea of using predictive coding!

  • Joshua Neil Rubin

    I like the idea of crowdsourcing ediscovery-related materials. A couple
    of comments on the Model Order:

    In the last sentence of Para
    3.(a), if there’s very low prevalence in the Sample Set, the Responding Party
    should increase the size of the Sample Set until it has determined prevalence
    to the satisfaction of the statisticians.

    Also, since the
    Responding Party has discretion (e.g., Para 3.(b(i)), it should maintain a
    complete audit log.

    In my ideal protocol, there would be full
    transparency maintained throughout. The agreed specification of the protocol
    would be as complete as possible up front. Then, recognizing that the map is
    not the terrain, the Responding Party would advise the Requesting Party of any
    material decisions that might affect the outcome. This would preclude expensive

    Joshua Neil Rubin